Effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound of the stomach: A randomized controlled trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 8, 2026
Author Spotlight: Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Gastric Content Assessment and Risk Stratification in Perioperative Care
Published on: September 22, 2023
Guo-Xin Wang1, Xiang Liu1, Sheng Wang1
1Guo-Xin Wang, Xiang Liu, Sheng Wang, Nan Ge, Jin-Tao Guo, Si-Yu Sun, Endoscopy Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China.
Aim:
To analyze the effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination of the stomach.
Methods:
This was a prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study. All patients were randomly assigned to either the Pronase group or placebo group. The pretreatment solution was a mixed solution of 20000 U of Pronase and 60 mL sodium bicarbonate solution in the Pronase group, while an equal amount of sodium bicarbonate solution was administered to the placebo group. All operators, image evaluators and experimental recorders in EUS did not participate in the preparation and allocation of pretreatment solution. Two blinded investigators assessed the obscurity scores for the EUS images according to the size of artifacts (including ultrasound images of the gastric cavity and the gastric wall). Differences in imaging quality, the duration of examination and the usage of physiological saline during the examination process between the Pronase group and the control group were compared.
Results:
No differences existed in patient demographics between the two groups. For the gastric cavity, the Pronase group had significantly lower mean obscurity scores than the placebo group (1.0476 ± 0.77 vs 1.6129 ± 0.96, respectively, P = 0.000). The mean obscurity scores for the gastric mucosal surface were significantly lower in the Pronase group than the placebo group (1.2063 ± 0.90 vs 1.7581 ± 0.84, respectively, P = 0.001). The average EUS procedure duration for the Pronase group was 11.60 ± 3.32 min, which was significantly shorter than that of the placebo group (13.13 ± 3.81 min, P = 0.007). Less saline was used in the Pronase group than the placebo group, and the difference was significant (417.94 ± 121.38 mL vs 467.42 ± 104.52 mL, respectively, P = 0.016).
Conclusion:
The group that had Pronase premedication prior to the EUS examination had clearer images than the placebo group. With Pronase premedication, the examination time was shorter, and the amount of saline used during the EUS examination was less.
Related Concept Videos
01:29Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:
01:20Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Prostaglandin Analogs as Mucosal Protective Agents
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can induce peptic ulcers by inhibiting cyclooxygenase, decreasing...
01:26Endoscopic Procedures V: ERCP
Patient...
01:28Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
01:26Peptic Ulcer Disease IV: Management
The therapeutic approach involves ensuring adequate rest, implementing drug therapy, promoting smoking cessation, making dietary modifications, and emphasizing long-term follow-up care.
Pharmacological management
The prevailing therapy for peptic ulcers involves a combination of managing the patient's current...
01:30Peptic Ulcer Disease I: Introduction
An acute ulcer, marked by superficial erosion and minimal inflammation, swiftly resolves upon identifying and addressing the underlying cause. In contrast, a chronic ulcer persists, potentially eroding through the muscular wall and forming fibrous tissue.
Peptic ulcers can also be...